Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2670 (RAJ)

Pravesh Baweja v. Ramchandra

2011-12-05

SANGEET LODHA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 15.9.2011 of Appellant Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners/tenants against the judgment and order dated 18.4.2009 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur allowing the petition preferred on behalf of the respondent/landlord under Section 9(a) of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short 'the Act') and issuing a certificate of recovery of possession, stands dismissed. 2. The respondent/landlord filed a petition for eviction and recovery of rent against the petitioners/tenants before the Rent Tribunal. The eviction was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent in terms of provisions of Section 9(a) of the Act. The petition was contested by the petitioners/tenants by filing a reply thereto. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the Rent Tribunal framed the issues and parties led the evidence. 3. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the Rent Tribunal arrived at the finding that the petitioners/tenants have committed default in payment of rent in terms of provisions of Section 9(a) of the Act and accordingly, directed eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises. The issue with regard to the arrear of rent was also decided in favour of the respondent/landlord. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of the Rent Tribunal, the petitioners/tenants preferred an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur. The Appellate Rent Tribunal has affirmed the findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Rent Tribunal as well as the Appellate Rent Tribunal have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in correct perspective. Learned counsel submitted that the amount deposited by the petitioners towards the rent of the suit premises could not have been adjusted by the respondent/landlord against the rent alleged to be due in respect of yet another premises which already stands vacated. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent alone is the landlord of the disputed two shops whereas the rent alleged to be due in respect of yet another premises i.e. 'Duchhati', the respondent and his son Gouri Shanker were landlord. Accordingly, it is submitted that the findings arrived at by the Tribunals ignoring this aspect of the matter are exfacie erroneous. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent alone is the landlord of the disputed two shops whereas the rent alleged to be due in respect of yet another premises i.e. 'Duchhati', the respondent and his son Gouri Shanker were landlord. Accordingly, it is submitted that the findings arrived at by the Tribunals ignoring this aspect of the matter are exfacie erroneous. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners were able to establish that the respondent and the Gouri Shanker had sold the premises in question and the underground constructed to the petitioners for a consideration of Rs. 15 lacs. It is submitted that though the respondent denied the fact but he deliberately did not produce this Gouri Shanker in evidence. Learned counsel submitted that after execution of the agreement to sell the respondent had reduced the rent of the premises by Rs. 2,000/- and therefore, the rent was being paid by the petitioners a sum of Rs. 9,080/- per month. Accordingly, it is submitted by the petitioners that the default in payment of rent is not proved and therefore, the impugned judgment and order of the appellate Tribunal, affirming the judgment and order passed by the Rent Tribunal deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-caveator submitted that the evidence on record has been considered by the Rent Tribunal objectively and the findings arrived at cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. It is to be noticed that the respondent/landlord claimed the rent of the suit premises to be Rs. 11,180/- per month. Admittedly, the petitioners deposited a sum of Rs. 1,68,950/- in the bank account of the petitioners during the period 16.8.2004 to 2.7.2005. The respondent/landlord after adjusting the amount of Rs. 77,000/-against the rent due for yet another premises let out to the petitioners which was subsequently vacated, claimed a sum of Rs. 91,950/- as arrear of rent and accordingly, sought eviction from the premises on account of default in payment of rent for a period more than four months. 9. The respondent/landlord after adjusting the amount of Rs. 77,000/-against the rent due for yet another premises let out to the petitioners which was subsequently vacated, claimed a sum of Rs. 91,950/- as arrear of rent and accordingly, sought eviction from the premises on account of default in payment of rent for a period more than four months. 9. The petitioners had taken the stand before the Tribunal that the amount due towards the rent of another premises already vacated could not have been adjusted by the respondent out of the rent deposited for the premises in question. Regarding non deposit of the rent @ Rs. 11,180/-, the petitioners had taken the stand that underground constructed below the shops in question and the shop of Gouri Shanker was sold to him for a consideration of Rs. 15 lacs and against that a sum of Rs. 5 lacs were paid in cash and therefore, the respondent had consented to charge the rent for the disputed shop a sum of Rs. 2,000 less than the rent agreed upon and therefore, the deposit of the rent by the petitioners in the account of the respondent @ Rs. 9,080/- per month was appropriate. 10. A perusal of the impugned judgments passed by the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal reveal that after due consideration of the evidence on record, a concurrent finding has been arrived at that the rent was being deposited by the petitioner in the bank account of the petitioners of both the premises and therefore, after adjusting the amount of the premises already vacated, the petitioners had deposited only Rs. 91,950/- towards the rent of premises in question due for the period May, 2004 to June, 2005. 11. Similarly, regarding the deposit of the rent, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- less than the rent agreed upon, the stand taken by the petitioners that on account of agreement to sell in respect of the underground premises and payment of a sum of Rs. 5 lacs in cash against the consideration also has not been proved by the petitioners by producing any cogent evidence on record. 2,000/- less than the rent agreed upon, the stand taken by the petitioners that on account of agreement to sell in respect of the underground premises and payment of a sum of Rs. 5 lacs in cash against the consideration also has not been proved by the petitioners by producing any cogent evidence on record. In absence of any documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has committed no error in holding that it is absolutely improbable that the petitioners shall enter into the transaction of sale of the property without even taking the receipts of the amount paid in advance towards the consideration of sale. 12. Having gone through the orders impugned and other material on record, this Court is firmly of the opinion that findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal regarding default in payment of rent, affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal is finding of fact which is based on due appreciation of evidence on record and cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. In the result, the writ petition fails, it is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******